Walker v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Walker v. State

132 So. 926, 24 Ala. App. 693

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 17, 1931

Docket6 Div. 917.

StatusPublished

This text of 132 So. 926 (Walker v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Walker v. State, 132 So. 926, 24 Ala. App. 693 (Ala. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

'Appellant was convicted of the offense of unlawfully distilling, etc., prohibited liquor, to wit, whisky.

The court has read the entire testimony, sitting en banc, and we are of the opinion, and hold, that it made a case for the jury’s decision, and that there was no error in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial.

The few exceptions reserved on the taking of testimony have each been examined. We do not deem separate discussion necessary, but are of the opinion that prejudicial error is shown by none of the rulings giving rise to same.

The written requested refused charges, other than the general affirmative charge, where correct, are fully covered by, and the same principle of law included in, other charges given to the jury.

We find nowhere prejudicial error, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI